Maureen Dowd is a liberal columnist at the liberal New York Times.  Nothing wrong with that; after all this is a free country where individuals and newspapers can publicly hold whatever opinions they wish without fear of retaliation.

She is also an attractive female who has, at times, incorporated this as part of her public persona and probably private personality.  Nothing wrong with using one's talents or assets either. 
 
But as her latest columnal rant proves, she is also a racist and a sexist.  And that is wrong.  Her criticisms of the evening news anchors, both incoming and departing, are focused solely on their skin color and gender; not one sentence——or even a phrase——about their talent or ability. 
 
Which means, what?  That race and gender equal talent?  That the New York Times hired her solely because of her gender but in spite of her pale skin?  (Maybe.)
 
Or that constantly harping on the shade of an individual's epidermis and gender is wrong, wrong, wrong unless the harper is a certified liberal and the harpees are white males?  Or the harpees are certified minorities who don't conform to sterotype? And then all is right, right, right? 
 
Ah, this is the politically correct answer.  Dowd will not only not suffer from her emphasis on gender and race she will undoubtedly be praised for writing a bold and courageous column.  The columnists and cartoonists who foamed at the supposed betrayal of Condoleezza Rice with ugly stereotypes about black females are still gainfully employed, smug in their righteousness.  And this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Ethel C. Fenig   12 2 04